Search

The prevalence of multiple age-related cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors is high among individuals living in low- and middle-income countries. We described receipt of healthcare services for and management of hypertension and diabetes among individuals living with these conditions using individual-level data from 55 nationally representative population-based surveys (2009-2019) with measured blood pressure (BP) and diabetes biomarker. We restricted our analysis to non-pregnant individuals aged 40-69 years and defined three mutually exclusive groups (i.e., hypertension only, diabetes only, and both hypertension-diabetes) to compare individuals living with concurrent hypertension and diabetes to individuals with each condition separately. We included 90,086 individuals who lived with hypertension only, 11,975 with diabetes only, and 16,228 with hypertension-diabetes. We estimated the percentage of individuals who were aware of their diagnosis, used pharmacological therapy, or achieved appropriate hypertension and diabetes management. A greater percentage of individuals with hypertension-diabetes were fully diagnosed (64.1% [95% CI: 61.8-66.4]) than those with hypertension only (47.4% [45.3-49.6]) or diabetes only (46.7% [44.1-49.2]). Among the hypertension-diabetes group, pharmacological treatment was higher for individual conditions (38.3% [95% CI: 34.8-41.8] using antihypertensive and 42.3% [95% CI: 39.4-45.2] using glucose-lowering medications) than for both conditions jointly (24.6% [95% CI: 22.1-27.2]).The percentage of individuals achieving appropriate management was highest in the hypertension group (17.6% [16.4-18.8]), followed by diabetes (13.3% [10.7-15.8]) and hypertension-diabetes (6.6% [5.4-7.8]) groups. Although health systems in LMICs are reaching a larger share of individuals living with both hypertension and diabetes than those living with just one of these conditions, only seven percent achieved both BP and blood glucose treatment targets. Implementation of cost-effective population-level interventions that shift clinical care paradigm from disease-specific to comprehensive CVD care are urgently needed for all three groups, especially for those with multiple CVD risk factors., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Diallo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The global burden of diabetes is rising rapidly, yet there is little evidence on individual-level diabetes prevention activities undertaken by health systems in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Here we describe the population at high risk of developing diabetes, estimate diabetes prevention activities, and explore sociodemographic variation in these activities across LMICs., Methods: We performed a pooled, cross-sectional analysis of individual-level data from nationally representative, population-based surveys conducted in 44 LMICs between October, 2009, and May, 2019. Our sample included all participants older than 25 years who did not have diabetes and were not pregnant. We defined the population at high risk of diabetes on the basis of either the presence of impaired fasting glucose (or prediabetes in countries with a haemoglobin A 1c available) or overweight or obesity, consistent with the WHO Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Guidelines for type 2 diabetes management. We estimated the proportion of survey participants that were at high risk of developing diabetes based on this definition. We also estimated the proportion of the population at high risk that reported each of four fundamental diabetes prevention activities: physical activity counselling, weight loss counselling, dietary counselling, and blood glucose screening, overall and stratified by World Bank income group. Finally, we used multivariable Poisson regression models to evaluate associations between sociodemographic characteristics and these activities., Findings: The final pooled sample included 145 739 adults (86 269 [59·2%] of whom were female and 59 468 [40·4%] of whom were male) across 44 LMICs, of whom 59 308 (40·6% [95% CI 38·5-42·8]) were considered at high risk of diabetes (20·6% [19·8-21·5] in low-income countries, 38·0% [37·2-38·9] in lower-middle-income countries, and 57·5% [54·3-60·6] in upper-middle-income countries). Overall, the reach of diabetes prevention activities was low at 40·0% (38·6-41·4) for physical activity counselling, 37·1% (35·9-38·4) for weight loss counselling, 42·7% (41·6-43·7) for dietary counselling, and 37·1% (34·7-39·6) for blood glucose screening. Diabetes prevention varied widely by national-level wealth: 68·1% (64·6-71·4) of people at high risk of diabetes in low-income countries reported none of these activities, whereas 49·0% (47·4-50·7) at high risk in upper-middle-income countries reported at least three activities. Educational attainment was associated with diabetes prevention, with estimated increases in the predicted probability of receipt ranging between 6·5 (3·6-9·4) percentage points for dietary fruit and vegetable counselling and 21·3 (19·5-23·2) percentage points for blood glucose screening, among people with some secondary schooling compared with people with no formal education., Interpretation: A large proportion of individuals across LMICs are at high risk of diabetes but less than half reported receiving fundamental prevention activities overall, with the lowest receipt of these activities among people in low-income countries and with no formal education. These findings offer foundational evidence to inform future global targets for diabetes prevention and to strengthen policies and programmes to prevent continued increases in diabetes worldwide., Funding: Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health McLennan Fund: Dean's Challenge Grant Program and the EU's Research and Innovation programme Horizon 2020., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Testing for the risk factors of cardiovascular disease, which include hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolaemia, is important for timely and effective risk management. Yet few studies have quantified and analysed testing of cardiovascular risk factors in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) with respect to sociodemographic inequalities. We aimed to address this knowledge gap., Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, we pooled individual-level data for non-pregnant adults aged 18 years or older from nationally representative surveys done between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2019 in LMICs that included a question about whether respondents had ever had their blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol measured. We analysed diagnostic testing performance by quantifying the overall proportion of people who had ever been tested for these cardiovascular risk factors and the proportion of individuals who met the diagnostic testing criteria in the WHO package of essential noncommunicable disease interventions for primary care (PEN) guidelines (ie, a BMI >30 kg/m 2 or a BMI >25 kg/m 2 among people aged 40 years or older). We disaggregated and compared diagnostic testing performance by sex, wealth quintile, and education using two-sided t tests and multivariable logistic regression models., Findings: Our sample included data for 994 185 people from 57 surveys. 19·1% (95% CI 18·5-19·8) of the 943 259 people in the hypertension sample met the WHO PEN criteria for diagnostic testing, of whom 78·6% (77·8-79·2) were tested. 23·8% (23·4-24·3) of the 225 707 people in the diabetes sample met the WHO PEN criteria for diagnostic testing, of whom 44·9% (43·7-46·2) were tested. Finally, 27·4% (26·3-28·6) of the 250 573 people in the hypercholesterolaemia sample met the WHO PEN criteria for diagnostic testing, of whom 39·7% (37·1-2·4) were tested. Women were more likely than men to be tested for hypertension and diabetes, and people in higher wealth quintiles compared with those in the lowest wealth quintile were more likely to be tested for all three risk factors, as were people with at least secondary education compared with those with less than primary education., Interpretation: Our study shows opportunities for health systems in LMICs to improve the targeting of diagnostic testing for cardiovascular risk factors and adherence to diagnostic testing guidelines. Risk-factor-based testing recommendations rather than sociodemographic characteristics should determine which individuals are tested., Funding: Harvard McLennan Family Fund, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the US National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This paper reviews the experience of six low-income and lower middle-income countries in setting their own essential packages of health services (EPHS), with the purpose of identifying the key requirements for the successful design and transition to implementation of the packages in the context of accelerating progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). The analysis is based on input from three meetings of a knowledge network established by the Disease Control Priorities 3 Country Translation Project and working groups, supplemented by a survey of participating countries.All countries endorsed the Sustainable Development Goals target 3.8 on UHC for achievement by 2030. The assessment of country experiences found that health system strengthening and mobilising and sustaining health financing are major challenges. EPHS implementation is more likely when health system gaps are addressed and when there are realistic and sustainable financing prospects. However, health system assessments were inadequate and the government planning and finance sectors were not consistently engaged in setting the EPHS in most of the countries studied. There was also a need for greater engagement with community and civil society representatives, academia and the private sector in package design. Leadership and reinforcement of technical and managerial capacity are critical in the transition from EPHS design to sustained implementation, as are strong human resources and country ownership of the process. Political commitment beyond the health sector is key, particularly commitment from parliamentarians and policymakers in the planning and finance sectors. National ownership, institutionalisation of technical and managerial capacity and reinforcing human resources are critical for success.The review concludes that four prerequisites are crucial for a successful EPHS: (1) sustained high-level commitment, (2) sustainable financing, (3) health system readiness, and (4) institutionalisation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Many countries around the world strive for universal health coverage, and an essential packages of health services (EPHS) is a central policy instrument for countries to achieve this. It defines the coverage of services that are made available, as well as the proportion of the costs that are covered from different financial schemes and who can receive these services. This paper reports on the development of an analytical framework on the decision-making process of EPHS revision, and the review of practices of six countries (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar-Tanzania).The analytical framework distinguishes the practical organisation, fairness and institutionalisation of decision-making processes. The review shows that countries: (1) largely follow a similar practical stepwise process but differ in their implementation of some steps, such as the choice of decision criteria; (2) promote fairness in their EPHS process by involving a range of stakeholders, which in the case of Zanzibar included patients and community members; (3) are transparent in terms of at least some of the steps of their decision-making process and (4) in terms of institutionalisation, express a high degree of political will for ongoing EPHS revision with almost all countries having a designated governing institute for EPHS revision.We advise countries to organise meaningful stakeholder involvement and foster the transparency of the decision-making process, as these are key to fairness in decision-making. We also recommend countries to take steps towards the institutionalisation of their EPHS revision process., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Alcohol is a leading risk factor for over 200 conditions and an important contributor to socioeconomic health inequalities. However, little is known about the associations between individuals' socioeconomic circumstances and alcohol consumption, especially heavy episodic drinking (HED; ≥5 drinks on one occasion) in low-income or middle-income countries. We investigated the association between individual and household level socioeconomic status, and alcohol drinking habits in these settings., Methods: In this pooled analysis of individual-level data, we used available nationally representative surveys-mainly WHO Stepwise Approach to Surveillance surveys-conducted in 55 low-income and middle-income countries between 2005 and 2017 reporting on alcohol use. Surveys from participants aged 15 years or older were included. Logistic regression models controlling for age, country, and survey year stratified by sex and country income groups were used to investigate associations between two indicators of socioeconomic status (individual educational attainment and household wealth) and alcohol use (current drinking and HED amongst current drinkers)., Findings: Surveys from 336 287 participants were included in the analysis. Among males, the highest prevalence of both current drinking and HED was found in lower-middle-income countries (L-MICs; current drinking 49·9% [95% CI 48·7-51·2] and HED 63·3% [61·0-65·7]). Among females, the prevalence of current drinking was highest in upper-middle-income countries (U-MIC; 29·5% [26·1-33·2]), and the prevalence of HED was highest in low-income countries (LICs; 36·8% [33·6-40·2]). Clear gradients in the prevalence of current drinking were observed across all country income groups, with a higher prevalence among participants with high socioeconomic status. However, in U-MICs, current drinkers with low socioeconomic status were more likely to engage in HED than participants with high socioeconomic status; the opposite was observed in LICs, and no association between socioeconomic status and HED was found in L-MICs., Interpretation: The findings call for urgent alcohol control policies and interventions in LICs and L-MICs to reduce harmful HED. Moreover, alcohol control policies need to be targeted at socially disadvantaged groups in U-MICs., Funding: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the US National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RA reports grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk, Roche, Novartis, and UICC; and payment or honoraria from Merck & Co, Novartis, and F Hoffmann-La Roche. TB is a board member of the Virchow Foundation for Global Health, Berlin; is a co-chair for Global Health Hub Germany; is a representative of the United Nations Western European and Others Group on the UNAIDS, Global Evaluation Expert Advisory Committee; is a standing review panel member in the National Institutes of Health section on Population and Public Health Approaches to HIV/AIDS; is a board member for the UNAIDS Unified Budget, Results and Accountability Framework; is a council member for the World Health Summit; is member of the Governing Council, Berlin, Germany; is a committee member on the German National Committee on the Future of Public Health Research and Education. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)